I posted the Genocides of the last Century. If I had to post all the Genocides committed in history this thread would be huge.Ratzinger wrote:
Um, the Aztecs/Olmans, Australian Aboriginals (esp. TAS), American natives, gotta love humanity, huh?
I fail to see where race is involved in most, if not all, of the examples. I have to agree with Iron on this one.sergeriver wrote:
Did you read the post? They all qualify as Genocide.IRONCHEF wrote:
You know, to be technical, none of the things you listed qualify as "genocide." Ethnic, religious, lifestyle, and political murders are more like it. And yes, they're all worthy of reflection and moments of sympathy. It's a damned shame how people behave. All the more reason to give equal reflection to life, the joys thereof, and to actively promote kindness. Doing so will bring balance and hopefully effect killers in a positive way so as to thwart their evil mindset.
yoda, out.
Edit: And things like darfur and the rape of nanking aren't genocide even by the loose UN definition. They are not an intentional attempt to eliminate part of a racial, ethnic, or religious group, they're just political differences.
Last edited by jonsimon (2006-11-21 15:42:09)
He's right, but it's the UN definition which includes killing any group for pretty much any reason. But like many, I think the real definition should be returned to it's root..being that of killing those of other races in mass.jonsimon wrote:
I fail to see where race is involved in most, if not all, of the examples. I have to agree with Iron on this one.sergeriver wrote:
Did you read the post? They all qualify as Genocide.IRONCHEF wrote:
You know, to be technical, none of the things you listed qualify as "genocide." Ethnic, religious, lifestyle, and political murders are more like it. And yes, they're all worthy of reflection and moments of sympathy. It's a damned shame how people behave. All the more reason to give equal reflection to life, the joys thereof, and to actively promote kindness. Doing so will bring balance and hopefully effect killers in a positive way so as to thwart their evil mindset.
yoda, out.
If you take the greek meaning then yes.IRONCHEF wrote:
He's right, but it's the UN definition which includes killing any group for pretty much any reason. But like many, I think the real definition should be returned to it's root..being that of killing those of other races in mass.jonsimon wrote:
I fail to see where race is involved in most, if not all, of the examples. I have to agree with Iron on this one.sergeriver wrote:
Did you read the post? They all qualify as Genocide.
I have read up on it. Both sides are Sudanese, both are black, ONE is of Arab mix. Look up Janjaweed.IRONCHEF wrote:
Racial because some like to set up farms, and some like to roam and graze? Go read up and get back to me and tell me if it's racial. Also, define "racial" for me. Both sides are sudanese, both are black. Some have arab heritage, all are muslim, all are about the same income level. It's just land rights and class warfare.Dec45 wrote:
Darfur is about Arab mixed Africans, killing Africans. It is racial.
"Since 2003 it has been one of the principal actors in the Darfur conflict, which has pitted the nomadic Arab-identifying Muslim Sudanese against the sedentary non-Arab Muslim Sudanese population of the region in a battle over resource and land allocation." - Wiki
They are fighting over land, but they are fighting as groups of different racial backgrounds.
They may be primarily of different ethnic groups, or ethnic groups may coincidentally align, but that does not necessarily mean they are fighting over race.Dec45 wrote:
I have read up on it. Both sides are Sudanese, both are black, ONE is of Arab mix. Look up Janjaweed.IRONCHEF wrote:
Racial because some like to set up farms, and some like to roam and graze? Go read up and get back to me and tell me if it's racial. Also, define "racial" for me. Both sides are sudanese, both are black. Some have arab heritage, all are muslim, all are about the same income level. It's just land rights and class warfare.Dec45 wrote:
Darfur is about Arab mixed Africans, killing Africans. It is racial.
"Since 2003 it has been one of the principal actors in the Darfur conflict, which has pitted the nomadic Arab-identifying Muslim Sudanese against the sedentary non-Arab Muslim Sudanese population of the region in a battle over resource and land allocation." - Wiki
They are fighting over land, but they are fighting as groups of different racial backgrounds.
Well man, you don't gather up non-Arab black girls and brand them over land.jonsimon wrote:
They may be primarily of different ethnic groups, or ethnic groups may coincidentally align, but that does not necessarily mean they are fighting over race.Dec45 wrote:
I have read up on it. Both sides are Sudanese, both are black, ONE is of Arab mix. Look up Janjaweed.IRONCHEF wrote:
Racial because some like to set up farms, and some like to roam and graze? Go read up and get back to me and tell me if it's racial. Also, define "racial" for me. Both sides are sudanese, both are black. Some have arab heritage, all are muslim, all are about the same income level. It's just land rights and class warfare.
"Since 2003 it has been one of the principal actors in the Darfur conflict, which has pitted the nomadic Arab-identifying Muslim Sudanese against the sedentary non-Arab Muslim Sudanese population of the region in a battle over resource and land allocation." - Wiki
They are fighting over land, but they are fighting as groups of different racial backgrounds.
What if I want to forget?
don't forget about the north Korean governments continuing genocide
Be my guest.usmarine2005 wrote:
What if I want to forget?
Neither Stalin's forced famine nor the Great Leap Forward were genocide:
In Stalin's case it's just as despicable: he was trying to starve them into submission, but he didn't actually want the all dead.
The Great Leap Forward was just a failed attempt at industrialisation, no-one was supposed to die. Further there is debate about how many died, and how much it was government mismanagement versus natural disasters (which did occur during the period).
In Stalin's case it's just as despicable: he was trying to starve them into submission, but he didn't actually want the all dead.
The Great Leap Forward was just a failed attempt at industrialisation, no-one was supposed to die. Further there is debate about how many died, and how much it was government mismanagement versus natural disasters (which did occur during the period).
Not genocide: they aren't killed, they're shoved into massive camps for punishment. I'm not sure which would be worse, however..................herrr_smity wrote:
don't forget about the north Korean governments continuing genocide
The Great Leap Forward IMO is not a Genocide, that's why I put the (Was this a Genocide?). The Stalin case is a Genocide in capital letters.Bubbalo wrote:
Neither Stalin's forced famine nor the Great Leap Forward were genocide:
In Stalin's case it's just as despicable: he was trying to starve them into submission, but he didn't actually want the all dead.
The Great Leap Forward was just a failed attempt at industrialisation, no-one was supposed to die. Further there is debate about how many died, and how much it was government mismanagement versus natural disasters (which did occur during the period).
Yeah! The Native Americans all lived in Disney Pocahontas peace and harmony with nature and one another before Europeans showed up. And then it was all a one-way street of violence against the Indians from there!Kmarion wrote:
You forgot about the American Indian.
Edit:(Ok a little more than 100 years)
There's no question about it: it was at worst (and generally considered to be) an example of huge mismanagement.sergeriver wrote:
The Great Leap Forward IMO is not a Genocide, that's why I put the (Was this a Genocide?)
Not according to your definition: he wasn't trying to destroy them, he was trying to starve them into submission. Mass-murder, definitely.sergeriver wrote:
The Stalin case is a Genocide in capital letters.
Well, trying to starve someone is close to trying to kill him.Bubbalo wrote:
There's no question about it: it was at worst (and generally considered to be) an example of huge mismanagement.sergeriver wrote:
The Great Leap Forward IMO is not a Genocide, that's why I put the (Was this a Genocide?)Not according to your definition: he wasn't trying to destroy them, he was trying to starve them into submission. Mass-murder, definitely.sergeriver wrote:
The Stalin case is a Genocide in capital letters.
That's not the issue: he wasn't trying to wipe out any group. Therefore, based on your definition, it wasn't genocide.
Well, according to all the sources I searched it's a Genocide, and it's not my definition. The guy was a wacko trying to starve a whole group of people because they were against him.Bubbalo wrote:
That's not the issue: he wasn't trying to wipe out any group. Therefore, based on your definition, it wasn't genocide.
Last edited by sergeriver (2006-11-22 08:24:48)
And this matters how? People have a nasty habit for forgetting definitions when it doesn't match with what they want to say.sergeriver wrote:
Well, according to all the sources I searched it's a Genocide,
Yes it is: you used it, you adopted it as your own.sergeriver wrote:
and it's not my definition.
Yes, but he wasn't try to wipe out a national or ethnic group. He was trying to force dissidents to give up resistance.sergeriver wrote:
The guy was a wacko trying to starve a whole group of people because they were against him.
What about the annihilation of over 200,000 Japanese with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Last edited by EVieira (2006-11-23 02:22:21)
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Well, at least it was a quick death and it was in a WAR.EVieira wrote:
What about the annihilation of over 200,000 Japanese with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Genocide = Trying to wipe out an ethnic group of people. The US wasn't trying to wipe off the Japanese from the face of the earth. If they were, they would of probably nuked Tokyo.
How could we forget, we still haven't grown out of it...
Which changes nothing. Not that it's an example of genocide (the most it can be argued to be is mass-murder), it's just that that isn't the reason it isn't.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Well, at least it was a quick death and it was in a WAR.
Quick death? Half of those that died of radiation poisoning which can linger for a long time before killing you. And many more who are not counted died of varius diseases caused by radiation. Countless children were born without limbs, brains or other defects due to radiation poisoning of ther mothers, which wasn't enough to kill her.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Well, at least it was a quick death and it was in a WAR.EVieira wrote:
What about the annihilation of over 200,000 Japanese with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Genocide = Trying to wipe out an ethnic group of people. The US wasn't trying to wipe off the Japanese from the face of the earth. If they were, they would of probably nuked Tokyo.
And no war can excuse genocide, if it could then Mislosevic and Nazis would not have been tried for war crimes.
If they were trying or not, they DID wipe out a nice piece of an ethinic group. What do you want to call it then, second degree genocide?
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
What do you call the mass murder of 200,000 people of the same ethnic group? Of the same "genos"? Even if genocide wasn't intentional?Bubbalo wrote:
Which changes nothing. Not that it's an example of genocide (the most it can be argued to be is mass-murder), it's just that that isn't the reason it isn't.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Well, at least it was a quick death and it was in a WAR.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)